The Bible and its Contradictions/Oddities

[James the Persian]

Thanks James!
Yes it does make sense! I always thought it was saying "Mary, mother of Jesus, please heal me" type of thing. I never would have put it into the context of asking other Christians to pray for you.

Glad to be of help. No, for us it's more usual something along the lines of 'Most Holy Theotokos pray to God for me'. Theotokos means Birthgiver (not Mother, though that's often how English speakers annoyingly translate it) of God in Greek, and is an affirmation that Christ was truley God Incarnate. Just in case you were wondering.

Likewise here's an example of a prayer 'to' my patron saint:

Pray for me Saint James the Persian, for with fervour I come to thee, speedy helper and intercessor for my soul.

As you can see, there's no mention of St. James doing anything other than praying for me (obviously, this is just a standard prayer and people with other patrons would insert their own instead of mine).

James

P.S.
You can give frubals for posts you like, found helpful, whatever, simply by clicking on the link where the poster's current frubal total is displayed. It's basically just a nice way to say thanks, well done, or whatever

 

[yippityyak]

Now I know it is wrong to use literacy books as examples because they are usually not true reflections of the Bible, but once I read a book where an Irish woman was giving birth and she was praying to one of her saints of "desperate causes". So she too would be asking that saint to pray for her?

And everyone has a Patron Saint? How is that determined? And am I correct in saying the Saints are made up of the disciples of Jesus?

 

[kimber1]

How do you, and why do you, give furbals? Dumb question, I know, but I am new here!

frubals are given if you agree with someone's post, want to express that agreeance by way of posting a little message to them. you just click on where it says frubals in someone's post, and it send you to where you can type a "hey that's great" or "i agree!" or something like that and their frubal points go up

Ok, so you would say for instance "Jesus, please cure me of this back pain that I have at the moment". Then to Mary "Mary, mother of Jesus, please speak to Jesus on my behalf and ask him to cure me of this back pain that I have?". So she will not answer your prayer but will "have a chat" with her son on your behalf?

kind of

And in terms of the Bible, what does it say about Mary? Are we to keep in contact with her? I know that Jesus assigned one of his disciples as her "son" before he died, to take care of her. Does that make that disciple more special than the rest?

And what is the significance of saying the "Hail Mary's"? Or other forms of penance.

well the Bible says she is blessed among women. i don't know that it says to keep in contact with her but it also doesn't say not to

as far as Jesus assigning the disciple to her, he wanted to ensure his mother was taken care of and protected. now being a Catholic i don't see THIS disciple as better than any other but obviously i see Peter as one bc we see him as the first Pope so to speak.

the Hail Mary is a prayer of meditation. it's to reflect upon Christ's life. it really is not about Mary at all the way people think. while you pray the prayer you are meditating on Christ's life and accomplishments and sufferings.

 

[kimber1]

Now I know it is wrong to use literacy books as examples because they are usually not true reflections of the Bible, but once I read a book where an Irish woman was giving birth and she was praying to one of her saints of "desperate causes". So she too would be asking that saint to pray for her?

correct

And everyone has a Patron Saint? How is that determined? And am I correct in saying the Saints are made up of the disciples of Jesus?

you can pick any Saint depending upon your circumstances. like there's a pretty common one who is a saint for lost causes or for helping you to find lost items. things like that. Saints are not just those 12 disciples. they are all who have died before us. well no, that's not quite correct. the Church regonizes certain Saints and establishes them as Saints of the Church. there's certain criteria involved in recognizing one as a Saint but i can't recall all of them this early

 

[yippityyak]

Ok, great, thank you very much Kimber1 and James!
You have helped me quite a bit!
Another thing I wanted to know is a double-barrel question, with the same sort of subject.

When Adam and Eve were alive, and they had Caine and Abel, they also had other children, am I correct? And when God flooded the Earth and everyone was killed, there was only Noah and his family left.

In both of those instances, how did they re-populate the earth? They would have had to sleep with their brothers and sisters and cousins and parents and uncles and so forth, am I right? Is this not wrong?

And why does God, in the Old Testament, condone (or seem to) the fact that men of that time had concubines? Does he not say that sex should be for a man and wife only? Would this not then be going against what he is teaching? Even in the instance of Abraham and Sara, Abraham sleeps with his concubine? And is it not said that sin is punished three fold, but sexual sin is punished ten fold, therefore making it the worst of all sin?

 

[kimber1]

Ok, great, thank you very much Kimber1 and James!
You have helped me quite a bit!
Another thing I wanted to know is a double-barrel question, with the same sort of subject.

When Adam and Eve were alive, and they had Caine and Abel, they also had other children, am I correct? And when God flooded the Earth and everyone was killed, there was only Noah and his family left.

In both of those instances, how did they re-populate the earth? They would have had to sleep with their brothers and sisters and cousins and parents and uncles and so forth, am I right? Is this not wrong?

And why does God, in the Old Testament, condone (or seem to) the fact that men of that time had concubines? Does he not say that sex should be for a man and wife only? Would this not then be going against what he is teaching? Even in the instance of Abraham and Sara, Abraham sleeps with his concubine? And is it not said that sin is punished three fold, but sexual sin is punished ten fold, therefore making it the worst of all sin?

complicated question i've heard several theories. that there were other people on the earth, just not mentioned. and i've heard it was populated by brothers/sisters/cousins. it's confusing because back then it does seem that it was an okay thing to do. the only thing i can figure is it was something that was abused and this abuse is what caused it to be a bad thing. sorry, i don't have a good answer for that one

 

[yippityyak]

Thats ok, no problem!
Thanks for trying!

Anyone else that expand on Kimber's explanation?

 

[James the Persian]

And everyone has a Patron Saint? How is that determined? And am I correct in saying the Saints are made up of the disciples of Jesus?

We don't really have Patrons Saints of causes like the Roman Catholics have (there are a few who are considered to have specific areas if you like but not many) so what Kimber1 said doesn't completely apply to us. All Orthodox have a patron saint after whom they are named. Usually this will have been chosen by the parents either because they feel a connection to that saint or because the child was born near their feast day. With both of my children it was actually both.

In the case of adult converts like myself we choose a saint as our patron before we are baptised or Chrismated (the prayers of the patron saint are asked for at this time, you see). I just looked into all the lives of the saints called James that I could find and as soon as I read the life of St. James the Persian, it just leaped out at me and the connection was there, for quite a number of reasons. The fact that his feast day is the day after my birthday didn't harm either. He's a very uncommon saint to have as a patron, though, which has caused me the odd difficulty (finding an icon was difficult, people never know when my saint's day - more important than a birthday for us - is, etc.).

And no, Patron Saints aren't all Apostles, they aren't even necessarily human. Mine was a martyr in Persia in the 5th century, my son's was the Voievod (kind of like a king) of Moldova in 15th century, my daughter's was a famous monk and spiritual father to my son's patron and my wife's is the Archangel Gabriel

James

P.S.
By the way it's an absolute joy (and I'm sure as an RC that Kimber1 would agree with me) to discuss these things with someone who accepts our explanations and doesn't try to tell us what we 'actually' believe. Usually people who ask questions like 'isn't it wrong to pray to Mary?' are less than open to the answers they get. Thank you very much for being different.

 

[yippityyak]

So if I was to search for the patron saints, say on Google, I would probably find them all and it would have an explanation as to the type of people that would be "connected" to this saint? And that is the way that you would choose your patron saint?

P.S.
By the way it's an absolute joy (and I'm sure as an RC that Kimber1 would agree with me) to discuss these things with someone who accepts our explanations and doesn't try to tell us what we 'actually' believe. Usually people who ask questions like 'isn't it wrong to pray to Mary?' are less than open to the answers they get. Thank you very much for being different.

Hey! I am here to learn and as I said, I know nothing!
It is very nice to have people to talk to about this stuff and figure out what is out there for me. And I particularily like the way the two of you have answered my questions, because you dont try to push your beliefs on me, you are just being informative. Thats nice! And it is great to have people out there who are willing to talk about it, and let me voice my opinions without being condescending! So thank you! And, without being offensive, it doesnt necessarily mean that I have to take what you tell me and put it into practice in my own life. I mean, I asked you the questions, so it is not for me to Judge what you believe just because I dont know what I believe! I think only objective people should be allowed onto this site. Otherwise there could be a lot of fighting! I will always be objective to what others tell me, because at the end of the day, each one of us is unique, in who we are, in our religions, in everything we do! So once again, thank you very much! :bow:

 

[kimber1]

So if I was to search for the patron saints, say on Google, I would probably find them all and it would have an explanation as to the type of people that would be "connected" to this saint? And that is the way that you would choose your patron saint?

here's a link to some Saints and their causes. http://wordbytes.org/saints/DailyPrayers/index.html

Hey! I am here to learn and as I said, I know nothing!
It is very nice to have people to talk to about this stuff and figure out what is out there for me. And I particularily like the way the two of you have answered my questions, because you dont try to push your beliefs on me, you are just being informative. Thats nice! And it is great to have people out there who are willing to talk about it, and let me voice my opinions without being condescending! So thank you! And, without being offensive, it doesnt necessarily mean that I have to take what you tell me and put it into practice in my own life. I mean, I asked you the questions, so it is not for me to Judge what you believe just because I dont know what I believe! I think only objective people should be allowed onto this site. Otherwise there could be a lot of fighting! I will always be objective to what others tell me, because at the end of the day, each one of us is unique, in who we are, in our religions, in everything we do! So once again, thank you very much! :bow:

james is right. i am thrilled that you're asking ratehr than once hearing our answers saying "but that's not what i've been taught. this is what you REALLY believe" the Catholic faith as well as the Orthodox is complex as in the history is just so rich and immense it takesawhile to grasp it if one ever really grasps it 100%. it's just awe inspiring

 

[kimber1]

also, i meant to mention, when someone like myself converted to Catholicism (and also my oldest son) we were asked to choose a Patron Saint as well. i chose St. Cecilia because she's affiliated with teh conversion of spouses and i've been dealing with my hubby not quite believeing but not disbelieveing either but also he was dead against the Catholic Church in the beginning. however he went from saying he'd never set foot in one, to having our marriage blessed their and allowing me to have our son baptized in it knowing i'll be raising him Catholic i also chose her as her 'day' is the day after my birthday my oldest son chose the Archangel Michael.

 

[James the Persian]

So if I was to search for the patron saints, say on Google, I would probably find them all and it would have an explanation as to the type of people that would be "connected" to this saint? And that is the way that you would choose your patron saint?

Not exactly. My name happened to be James so I looked at all the saints called James (huge number, by the way) and tried to figure out which one I wanted. In the end it felt more like I'd been chjosen than the other way around. It's not that there's a certain type of person that would be connected to a certain saint - it's much more personal than that. Some people who convert don't have a saint's name so they don't feel constrained like I did. Others do, but they take a saint with a name different to their own anyway. Either way, it's the saint's name that they are known by in Church even if it's different from what they are known as in the world.

Hey! I am here to learn and as I said, I know nothing!
It is very nice to have people to talk to about this stuff and figure out what is out there for me. And I particularily like the way the two of you have answered my questions, because you dont try to push your beliefs on me, you are just being informative. Thats nice! And it is great to have people out there who are willing to talk about it, and let me voice my opinions without being condescending! So thank you! And, without being offensive, it doesnt necessarily mean that I have to take what you tell me and put it into practice in my own life. I mean, I asked you the questions, so it is not for me to Judge what you believe just because I dont know what I believe! I think only objective people should be allowed onto this site. Otherwise there could be a lot of fighting! I will always be objective to what others tell me, because at the end of the day, each one of us is unique, in who we are, in our religions, in everything we do! So once again, thank you very much! :bow:

Don't worry, I wasn't expecting you to convert or anything. I don't go in for proselytism of that sort. I feel that if you live your faith people will be drawn to it by your example, preaching usually just puts people off. I don't think you appreciate just how rare it is on these sorts of forums for people to ask us questions and be genuinely interested in the answers, though. Usually such questions are posed by closed minded people who merely want to attack us. I'm very grateful that you are not one of them (which is why your frubals went up earlier).

James

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Sorry, but no. There never was one defined canon and I doubt there ever will be. Your canon is larger than that of the Protestants but smaller than mine and both of ours are smaller than the Ethiopian canon. This has always been the case and yet up until the Council of Chalcedon all of us formed one Church and all three canons were considered valid. So far as I know we all still consider each other's canons to be valid also. Incidentally, historically there was a fourth canon in the Syriac, though they later revised it to conform to Greek (ours, in other words) usage, which also was considered valid.

Not an expert here, but I believe the fact that individual churches established different canons does not invalidate the authority of the Carthage Council to establish the Canon for the whole Church, which it did.

There was no single point at which one authoritative canon was declared (though you are right that 397 was a significant date for the canonisation of the New Testament) else why did both your Church and mine need councils to defend our canon against Protestant mutilation? (Yours was Trent, I believe, ours was Iasi).

The fact that Protestants tried to change it does not invalidate earlier authoritative Council declarations. The fact that we did have to defend it is proof that we aleady had one established, and it had been established authoritatively since 397.

The simple answer to Yippityyak's question is that what he has been told is a Protestant myth. The Roman Catholic Church never was in a position to change he Bible as Rome never had control over the entire Church.

This goes to an entirely different discussion that we don't need to go into.

Even if Rome had changed something we would not have followed suit, nor would the Oriental Orthodox as is perfectly exemplified by our differing canons. Even if we had all changed something, there were Christian groups such as he Nestorians who were outside the Church and would certainly never have accepted them - yet their canon is no more different from mine than the Ethiopian is, just having fewer rather than more books.

Again, the fact that heretical groups individually form their own beliefs and canons does not negate the validity of the Church's authority to establish the Canon. The official canon has not changed in the Church since 397.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

So the stories of a book of the Bible that was written by Mary, Jesus' mother, is not true?

Parts of them may be true, but they are not inspired.

Or that (and please dont be offended), the Roman Catholic church took books out of the Bible to benefit themselves and what they were trying to teach?

Hasn't happened. Like I said, the Canon of the Church has been the same since it was authoritatively declared at the Council of Carthage.

And the other thing that i also wanted to know about is when in Matthew 7:7 where Jesus says ask and you will recieve. I have not had a prayer that has been answered before, or that could be deemed as being answered, but that if you look at it in a non-religious way, you can see that my actions directly influenced the outcome of that particular problem. But also if people pray for things like healing from Cancer or some other life threatening disease, and their prayer is not answered. Why not? Or if they pray in an unselfish way for a person they dont know but is aware of their illness, and their illness is not cured. Why not?

Read the epistle of James when it talks about prayer, and you will see a bit of clarification on prayer. We are to pray according to God's will, not just for whatever we want. Also, it is the prayer of a righteous man that is powerful and effective. If we are living unrighteously and doing our own thing, only to pray occassionally when we're in a tight sopt and really need God, it is not reasonable for God to positively answer our prayers. However, sometimes even when we are living righteously, some things simply aren't God's will. Maybe God is using the illness to teach you or the sick person something, etc. There are many possibilities.

 

[jmaster78]

Hey there! this whole thing about hitting your slave confuses me, not whether he dies today or tomorrow, but weren't all men created equally? therefore why do the biblical patriarchs like Abraham even have slaves!

 

[yippityyak]

Hey there! this whole thing about hitting your slave confuses me, not whether he dies today or tomorrow, but weren't all men created equally? therefore why do the biblical patriarchs like Abraham even have slaves!

If you read the book of Leviticus (which is how I know it), this is where it lays down the rules and regulations for a Christian. Here it will tell you about slaves and things like eating the fat of an animal and marriage, etc.

It is a good read, but this is where I get confused about the relevance of the Old Testament in todays era. Would any of us be able to honestly follow all of those rules?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

If you read the book of Leviticus (which is how I know it), this is where it lays down the rules and regulations for a Christian.

Incorrect. Leviticus lays down the rules and regulations for Old Testament Jews, not New Testament Christians. Big difference.

 

[yippityyak]

Incorrect. Leviticus lays down the rules and regulations for Old Testament Jews, not New Testament Christians. Big difference.

But is the Old Testament not supposed to be as relevant today as the New Testament is?

If it is not relevant, why do we still have to read it and what purpose does it serve?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

But is the Old Testament not supposed to be as relevant today as the New Testament is?

No, the parts containing ceremonial laws are not. That's why one is Old, and one is New.

If it is not relevant, why do we still have to read it and what purpose does it serve?

It is relevant in the sense that it shows us where we came from. We can learn things about God and the way He deals with people, as well as see how God has brought His promises and prophecies to pass.

 

[James the Persian]

Not an expert here, but I believe the fact that individual churches established different canons does not invalidate the authority of the Carthage Council to establish the Canon for the whole Church, which it did.

No, I can see that you're no expert. Carthage was a local council with no authority outside of North Africa. It, then, did not establish a canon for the whole Church and had no authority to do so. It was the first council to delineate the books of the New Testament we have today, but that is all. It also wasn't the first time the list had been made as it simply echoed St. Athansios' list. It didn't touch on the OT canon at all, and even after your supposed established NT canon (which you clearly misunderstand) the Ethiopian Broad canon differed - and they were not outside the Church, Chalcedon still being in the future at that point. Likewise at that time the accepted Syriac canon used throughout the Middle East was one which included the Diatessaron, not four separate Gospels, the conformation of the Syriac text with the Greek did not happen until later and then it was slowly and not instant as it would have been had they got some authoritative decree from a council. Carthage was not an Ecumenical Council and had no such authority in the first place.

The fact that Protestants tried to change it does not invalidate earlier authoritative Council declarations. The fact that we did have to defend it is proof that we aleady had one established, and it had been established authoritatively since 397.

No, we already had two established. The one used in the eastern Sees was larger (and remains so) than the Roman one. Didn't you know that? The two councils that we each were forced to call after the Reformation were due to Protestants attempting to remove books from the OT. Had we had a previous definitive canon no new council would have been necessary as we could have simply referred to the acts of the council that defined the canon. That proves that there was no time when it was established authoritatively. Anyway, for you to suggest such a thing would be to condemn Rome as you (under the influence of St. Jerome it seems) dropped Deuterocanonical books from the OT that you initially had, whilst the other four Patriarchal Sees never did.

This goes to an entirely different discussion that we don't need to go into.

No, it was a statement of fact that even you could not possibly deny given that you must admit that both the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East were not in communion with Rome and that the Eastern Sees did not accept Roman authority over them. It was also in response to Yippityyak's question and not directed at you.

Again, the fact that heretical groups individually form their own beliefs and canons does not negate the validity of the Church's authority to establish the Canon.

Nobody said it did, it just didn't happen in the way you are asserting. I suggest that you need to do a lot more research on the subject if you wish to debate it with me because at the moment you appear to be at a disadvantage due to misunderstandings and paucity of facts.

The official canon has not changed in the Church since 397.

Ours hasn't. Yours has. But then as Carthage wasn't Ecumenical and even if it had been only touched on the New Testament (which neither of us have changed) that's really academic. Your canon is just as valid as mine, it's just that your understanding of Church history appears to be full of holes.

Here, for your examination, is a table which lists the OT books of several canons. Ours is that of the original Septuagint. Yours, as you'll see, is slightly reduced (St. Jerome, was not a fan of the Deuterocanon).

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/otbooks.html

James